首先老貓要指出您的案件相當的複雜，因為這涉及了您與男友之間videotaped his consensual sexual encounters;'在您所住的州是否有相關的法令來管轄，密西根州是有相關的法令
(請見最後的附錄)，所以您依法可以對其提出民事求償的訴訟，
2003 年 Lewis v. LeGrow 的案件中Three ex-girlfriends brought invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress action against boyfriend who had secretly videotaped his consensual sexual encounters with them
最終陪審團判決給予每一位受害人$100,000 的賠償但是您的案件
A trial court's ruling regarding the admission of evidence is questionable,因為您已經編輯過這個錄影帶，所以您的行為已經使這個錄影帶不客觀，所以法官有可能不容許您使用這個錄影帶作為證據，所以您的錯誤就在於您自行執法而沒有經過適當的程序來處理，所以這可能會造成您沒有一個很好的案件。
總之，您應該盡快諮詢律師來處理這個案件，同時不要與任何人討論這個案件除了您的律師，因為這是唯一能保障您權益的方式。
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Currentness
The Michigan Penal Code
+ Chapter LXXXII. Telegraph and Telephone (Refs & Annos)
>>750.539d. Installation, placement, etc., of recording, transmitting,
etc., device in private place; distribution, dissemination, or
transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image obtained in
violation of section; other offenses
Sec. 539d. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall
not do either of the following:
(a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the
person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing,
recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or
events in that place.
(b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a
recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know
was obtained in violation of this section.
(2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if
conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that
residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
(3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a
crime as follows:
(a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a):
(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more
than $2,000.00, or both.
(ii) If the person was previously convicted of violating or attempting to
violate this section, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00,
or both.
(b) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(b), the person is
guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a
fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(4) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted
of, or punished for any other violation of law committed by that person while
violating or attempting to violate subsection (1)(a) or (b).
CREDIT(S)
Amended by P.A.2004, No. 156, Eff. Sept. 1, 2004.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2004 Main Volume
Source:
P.A.1931, No. 328, 539d, added by P.A.1966, No. 319, 1,
Eff. March
10, 1967.
C.L.1948, 750.539d.
C.L.1970, 750.539d.
P.A.2004, No. 156, rewrote this section, which read:
"Sec. 539d. Any person who installs in any private place, without the consent
of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing,
photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in such place, or
uses any such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not
more than $2,000.00, or both."
P.A.2004, No. 156, enacting 1 and 2, provide:
"Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect September 1, 2004.
"Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate
Bill No. 918 of the 92nd Legislature is enacted into law."
Senate Bill No. 918 was enacted as P.A.2004, No. 155, and was approved June
15, 2004, and filed June 16, 2004, eff. September 1, 2004.
P.A.2004, No. 156, was ordered to take immediate effect, and was approved June
15, 2004, and filed June 16, 2004.
CROSS REFERENCES
Prima facie evidence of violations, see 750.539i.
Sentencing guidelines, see 777.16z.
LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES
Torts: Annual survey of Michigan law June 2003-May 2004. Karen H. Safran,
51 Wayne L.Rev. 833 (2005).
LIBRARY REFERENCES
2004 Main Volume
Telecommunications k491.
Westlaw Topic No. 372.
C.J.S. Telecommunications 233 to 234, 236 to 238, 240 to
242, 244 to 245, 253, 258 to 261.5, 307.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
2006 Electronic Update
Encyclopedias
46 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 429, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress by Landlord.
3 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 581, Sexual Harassment by Landlord.
12 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 505, Avoiding the "Intentional Injury"
Exclusion--Insured Acting With Full Mental Capacity.
Mich. Civ. Jur. Privacy 6, Particular Acts as Invasion of the Right,
Generally.
Mich. Civ. Jur. Privacy 15, Recording of Telephone Conversations.
Mich. Civ. Jur. Telecommunications 33, Liability for Disclosing
Contents of Messages; Eavesdropping.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Gillespie MI Crim. Law & Proc. 141:4, Eavesdropping -- Offenses.
Gillespie MI Crim. Law & Proc. 141:5, Eavesdropping -- Evidence.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general 1
Evidence 3
Private place 2
1. In general
Installation of device capable of surveillance is felonious only if it is
intended to be used or is in fact used for purpose of eavesdropping. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Couvier (1998) 575 N.W.2d 331, 227 Mich.App. 271.
Disorderly Conduct k 1
Installation of viewing devices such as see-through panels in ceiling of
skating rink restroom which permitted surreptitious observation, from above,
of the interior, including separately partitioned stalls, as alleged by
plaintiff in her complaint, would be felony pursuant to this section, which
constitutes legislative expression of public policy opposed to such conduct.
Harkey v. Abate (1983) 346 N.W.2d 74, 131 Mich.App. 177. Torts k 341
Plaintiff and her daughter had right to privacy in public restroom, which
right was violated by installation of hidden viewing devices, even if the
devices were not used. Harkey v. Abate (1983) 346 N.W.2d 74, 131 Mich.App.
177. Torts k 341
Defendant's surveillance of rest room stalls via two-way mirror constituted a
continuous infringement on complainant's expectation of safety from intrusion
in the stall and, to the extent that complainant could reasonably expect to be
free from view of others for a limited time during which the stall was used,
stall constituted a "private place" under this section protecting private
places from surreptitious visual entry. People v. Abate (1981) 306 N.W.2d
476, 105 Mich.App. 274. Disorderly Conduct k 1
2. Private place
Boyfriend's bedroom was a "private place" under invasion of privacy statute,
for purposes of ex-girlfriends' action against boyfriend for secretly
videotaping consensual sexual activity; reasonable people expected to be free
from being secretly spied on and having their privacy invaded when in a
bedroom, and there was a vast difference between knowingly exposing themselves
to their boyfriend during consensual sex and having that intimate event
secretly videotaped. Lewis v. LeGrow (2003) 670 N.W.2d 675, 258 Mich.App. 175
. Torts k 341
3. Evidence
Statutory presumption of 750.539i that proof of installation in a
private place of any device which could be used for secret observations of
persons in private places shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this
section prohibiting installation or maintenance of devices designed for secret
observations of persons in private places did not violate due process since
presence of secretive viewing devices was not a common occurrence and it was
unlikely that owner of building or of other private area would be unaware of
its presence or use. People v. Abate (1981) 306 N.W.2d 476, 105 Mich.App. 274
. Constitutional Law k 258(3.1)
M. C. L. A. 750.539d, MI ST 750.539d
(請見最後的附錄)，所以您依法可以對其提出民事求償的訴訟，
2003 年 Lewis v. LeGrow 的案件中Three ex-girlfriends brought invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress action against boyfriend who had secretly videotaped his consensual sexual encounters with them
最終陪審團判決給予每一位受害人$100,000 的賠償但是您的案件
A trial court's ruling regarding the admission of evidence is questionable,因為您已經編輯過這個錄影帶，所以您的行為已經使這個錄影帶不客觀，所以法官有可能不容許您使用這個錄影帶作為證據，所以您的錯誤就在於您自行執法而沒有經過適當的程序來處理，所以這可能會造成您沒有一個很好的案件。
總之，您應該盡快諮詢律師來處理這個案件，同時不要與任何人討論這個案件除了您的律師，因為這是唯一能保障您權益的方式。
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Currentness
The Michigan Penal Code
+ Chapter LXXXII. Telegraph and Telephone (Refs & Annos)
>>750.539d. Installation, placement, etc., of recording, transmitting,
etc., device in private place; distribution, dissemination, or
transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image obtained in
violation of section; other offenses
Sec. 539d. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall
not do either of the following:
(a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the
person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing,
recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or
events in that place.
(b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a
recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know
was obtained in violation of this section.
(2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if
conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that
residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
(3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a
crime as follows:
(a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a):
(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more
than $2,000.00, or both.
(ii) If the person was previously convicted of violating or attempting to
violate this section, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00,
or both.
(b) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(b), the person is
guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a
fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(4) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted
of, or punished for any other violation of law committed by that person while
violating or attempting to violate subsection (1)(a) or (b).
CREDIT(S)
Amended by P.A.2004, No. 156, Eff. Sept. 1, 2004.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2004 Main Volume
Source:
P.A.1931, No. 328,
Eff. March
10, 1967.
C.L.1948,
C.L.1970,
P.A.2004, No. 156, rewrote this section, which read:
"Sec. 539d. Any person who installs in any private place, without the consent
of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing,
photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in such place, or
uses any such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not
more than $2,000.00, or both."
P.A.2004, No. 156, enacting
"Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect September 1, 2004.
"Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate
Bill No. 918 of the 92nd Legislature is enacted into law."
Senate Bill No. 918 was enacted as P.A.2004, No. 155, and was approved June
15, 2004, and filed June 16, 2004, eff. September 1, 2004.
P.A.2004, No. 156, was ordered to take immediate effect, and was approved June
15, 2004, and filed June 16, 2004.
CROSS REFERENCES
Prima facie evidence of violations, see
Sentencing guidelines, see
LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES
Torts: Annual survey of Michigan law June 2003-May 2004. Karen H. Safran,
51 Wayne L.Rev. 833 (2005).
LIBRARY REFERENCES
2004 Main Volume
Telecommunications k491.
Westlaw Topic No. 372.
C.J.S. Telecommunications
242, 244 to 245, 253, 258 to 261.5, 307.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
2006 Electronic Update
Encyclopedias
46 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 429, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress by Landlord.
3 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 581, Sexual Harassment by Landlord.
12 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 505, Avoiding the "Intentional Injury"
Exclusion--Insured Acting With Full Mental Capacity.
Mich. Civ. Jur. Privacy
Generally.
Mich. Civ. Jur. Privacy
Mich. Civ. Jur. Telecommunications
Contents of Messages; Eavesdropping.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Gillespie MI Crim. Law & Proc.
Gillespie MI Crim. Law & Proc.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general 1
Evidence 3
Private place 2
1. In general
Installation of device capable of surveillance is felonious only if it is
intended to be used or is in fact used for purpose of eavesdropping. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Couvier (1998) 575 N.W.2d 331, 227 Mich.App. 271.
Disorderly Conduct k 1
Installation of viewing devices such as see-through panels in ceiling of
skating rink restroom which permitted surreptitious observation, from above,
of the interior, including separately partitioned stalls, as alleged by
plaintiff in her complaint, would be felony pursuant to this section, which
constitutes legislative expression of public policy opposed to such conduct.
Harkey v. Abate (1983) 346 N.W.2d 74, 131 Mich.App. 177. Torts k 341
Plaintiff and her daughter had right to privacy in public restroom, which
right was violated by installation of hidden viewing devices, even if the
devices were not used. Harkey v. Abate (1983) 346 N.W.2d 74, 131 Mich.App.
177. Torts k 341
Defendant's surveillance of rest room stalls via two-way mirror constituted a
continuous infringement on complainant's expectation of safety from intrusion
in the stall and, to the extent that complainant could reasonably expect to be
free from view of others for a limited time during which the stall was used,
stall constituted a "private place" under this section protecting private
places from surreptitious visual entry. People v. Abate (1981) 306 N.W.2d
476, 105 Mich.App. 274. Disorderly Conduct k 1
2. Private place
Boyfriend's bedroom was a "private place" under invasion of privacy statute,
for purposes of ex-girlfriends' action against boyfriend for secretly
videotaping consensual sexual activity; reasonable people expected to be free
from being secretly spied on and having their privacy invaded when in a
bedroom, and there was a vast difference between knowingly exposing themselves
to their boyfriend during consensual sex and having that intimate event
secretly videotaped. Lewis v. LeGrow (2003) 670 N.W.2d 675, 258 Mich.App. 175
. Torts k 341
3. Evidence
Statutory presumption of
private place of any device which could be used for secret observations of
persons in private places shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this
section prohibiting installation or maintenance of devices designed for secret
observations of persons in private places did not violate due process since
presence of secretive viewing devices was not a common occurrence and it was
unlikely that owner of building or of other private area would be unaware of
its presence or use. People v. Abate (1981) 306 N.W.2d 476, 105 Mich.App. 274
. Constitutional Law k 258(3.1)
M. C. L. A. 750.539d, MI ST 750.539d
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
